Poor man's waypoints (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

dkurtz39 -> Poor man's waypoints (8/5/2004 12:08:30 AM)

Does the following work in WitP the way it did in PacWar, to get past the lack of waypoints in game?

- Create a TF in San Diego
- Set it's destination for Christmas Island, or in the case of WitP, a hex nearby the island.
- Set the home port to Espiritu Santu

The net result being that the TF will take a backdoor route to it's destination by heading to Christmas Island first , at the expense of some extra time enroute and the requirement that you re-route back to San Diego.



Bodhi -> RE: Poor man's waypoints (8/5/2004 12:11:32 AM)

Yes, as long as you have retirement allowed set. For transport TFs, if you select another base as the waypoint (you can select an ocean square if you want) you may also want to set the TF to don't unload. ;-)



Vaevictis_386 -> RE: Poor man's waypoints (8/5/2004 12:15:55 AM)

Something I seem to have run into --

If you set the waypoint as another base with plenty of fuel, the TF will sit there resupplying itself with fuel every turn -- it does not feel it needs to return to the home base.



foliveti -> RE: Poor man's waypoints (8/5/2004 12:21:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vaevictis_386

Something I seem to have run into --

If you set the waypoint as another base with plenty of fuel, the TF will sit there resupplying itself with fuel every turn -- it does not feel it needs to return to the home base.


Actually what I have noticed is that it sets itself to unload, but since you have set the TF to do not unload it just kind of hangs up there in unload mode without actually taking anything off of the ship. I have noticed what you need to do is hit cancel unload.



ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Poor man's waypoints (8/5/2004 12:25:27 AM)

I will watch, but I haven't noticed this problem.

SF to Brisbane via Pago-Pago. Destination Pago-Pago. Homebase Brisbane. Set to NOT Unload. Retirement allowed. Should dock one turn in Pago-Pago, then head to Brisbane next turn. Will have to see if it just sticks in Pago-Pago until a manual boot in the rear....



UncleBuck -> RE: Poor man's waypoints (8/5/2004 12:28:31 AM)

I have found that if I set them to do nto unload they get to the base I am using as a way point, re-fuel if they can then head to where I wanted them. It really helps to get DM's and short legged DD's to teh Solomons.

UB



ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Poor man's waypoints (8/5/2004 12:32:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleBuck

I have found that if I set them to do nto unload they get to the base I am using as a way point, re-fuel if they can then head to where I wanted them. It really helps to get DM's and short legged DD's to teh Solomons.

UB


TK's hauling OIL from US to Oz need a top-off too.



Toro -> RE: Poor man's waypoints (8/5/2004 12:35:19 AM)

I do the UncleBuck routine, too. I use several stop-over points for ships to transit to, setting them to not unload (for troops, a/c, etc), then jump base-to-base. Then, I have additional supply transports resupplying these bases.

For example, my routes are SF-Palmyra, Palm-Canton Is, Canton-Suva, Suva-Noumea, Noumea to wherever. Then, I have supply convoys between each of these ports, too. So, the SF-Palm dumps lots of supplies and fuel at Palm, then goes home; then another takes these from Palmyra to Canton, then back empty; etc. Takes a lot of ships, but that's all the Allies have at the start. My troop/ac convoys just stop at each base for fuel along the way.

Does take a bit of watching over, but isn't too bad. Besides, keeps supplies/fuel coming in regularly, not every month via a large convoy.

Now, anyone who might play me PBEM in the future, you MUST FORGET THIS...! [;)]



ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Poor man's waypoints (8/5/2004 12:43:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Toro

I do the UncleBuck routine, too. I use several stop-over points for ships to transit to, setting them to not unload (for troops, a/c, etc), then jump base-to-base. Then, I have additional supply transports resupplying these bases.

For example, my routes are SF-Palmyra, Palm-Canton Is, Canton-Suva, Suva-Noumea, Noumea to wherever. Then, I have supply convoys between each of these ports, too. So, the SF-Palm dumps lots of supplies and fuel at Palm, then goes home; then another takes these from Palmyra to Canton, then back empty; etc. Takes a lot of ships, but that's all the Allies have at the start. My troop/ac convoys just stop at each base for fuel along the way.

Does take a bit of watching over, but isn't too bad. Besides, keeps supplies/fuel coming in regularly, not every month via a large convoy.

Now, anyone who might play me PBEM in the future, you MUST FORGET THIS...! [;)]


I was about to say....good places for Jap sub concentrations with Jap Sub Doctrine turned off. Subs based out of Truk and later, Rabaul....



Toro -> RE: Poor man's waypoints (8/5/2004 12:47:35 AM)

All I can say is, ASW TFs, my friend, ASW TFs... [:D]

Your point is quite valid, Zoomie, and once the Japanese get closer, I'll have ASW units near these bases to address the issue (or, shift the route ends, if things get too hairy).



kaleun -> RE: Poor man's waypoints (8/5/2004 1:15:56 AM)

quote:

All I can say is, ASW TFs, my friend, ASW TFs...


Big BIG ASW Tfs waiting for spite's subs[:'(] drool, drool.



John B -> RE: Poor man's waypoints (8/5/2004 1:34:38 AM)

Sounds the best way to avoid the tendency of Allied auto-convoys in the S. Pacific to head like lemmings for the Jap Bettys based on Kwajalein.
Incidently re subs, has anyone noticed that after Patch 1.20, if both sides subs are set to historical doctrine, the slaughter of Jap transports which happened in the opening weeks of the campaign game in the pre-patch version doesn't happen at all. In December in my current game, Alled subs sank one Jap ship, looked at a few others, and decided it was too risky to attack. Jap subs also seem rather less in evidence in the patched version as well. Must check on the stats to see if this is closer to reality. If the trend continues, it may give the Japs more shipping to continue their offensive, which in my previous game was definitely running out of steam (or shipping?) by early June.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Poor man's waypoints (8/5/2004 1:36:45 AM)

quote:

Incidently re subs, has anyone noticed that after Patch 1.20, if both sides subs are set to historical doctrine, the slaughter of Jap transports which happened in the opening weeks of the campaign game in the pre-patch version doesn't happen at all. In December in my current game, Alled subs sank one Jap ship, looked at a few others, and decided it was too risky to attack. Jap subs also seem rather less in evidence in the patched version as well. Must check on the stats to see if this is closer to reality. If the trend continues, it may give the Japs more shipping to continue their offensive, which in my previous game was definitely running out of steam (or shipping?) by early June.


That was the desired goal ... Allied sub doctrine wasn't any different the Japanese doctrine when the war started. Never liked the unrestricted warfare on day 1.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.032227